Thursday, September 04, 2008

Let's hope that she's more memorable in motion than in still advertisements. Ho hum.

I'd be very excited about that "awards calibre" blurb but for that it comes from the keyboard of Peter B.W.* Travers who, if you take his words literally, would like all Oscar categories expanded to include about 50 nominees each year. At least. So free with the hosannas that one.

How excited are you to see Rachel Getting Married? Is Anne Hathaway the life of your movie party or do you think she's more of a cinematic gate crasher?

29 comments:

Julia
said...

I've never really liked Anne H as an actress, she's never been very memorable or done more than average work in my opinion. She's a beautiful girl and I think she's done a good job breaking out of the "Princess Diaries" category everyone initially put her in, but I'll need to see something that really blows me away to change my opinion of her acting.

shes... whatever to me. she tried to not be typecast by playing a role out of her element which resulted to havoc. and i mean literally havoc, the 2005 film where she plays a suburban girl who clashes with the latino gang of east l.a. and even the trailer wasnt believable to me. but watching the trailer for rachel getting married i can already assume what kind of character she is portraying and it seems to kind of work. i will probably only see this film to see if shes worthy, meaning oscar worthy..

Seeing this movie next Monday as a part of the Independent Spirit Award voter, and I have to say that it's being buzzed about very much with my other ISA friends. Hathaway will walk away the comedy GG, and OT but that poster is horrible. It looks like a bad DVD cover...

I love Anne Hathaway! I think she is so talented! I am so happy for all the positive reviews she's been receiving for "Rachel's Getting Married" and I really hopes she receives an Oscar nomination. So, I guess I am totally excited for this movie.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Anne Hathaway is fucking BORING. I don't think she necesarily has a lack of talent, but she's yet to really give a performance that was particularly interesting ("Brokeback" came the closest). She was sexy in "Get Smart" this summer, but no less dull.

That said, the trailer for "Rachel" single-handedly upped my interest in the movie significantly and looks like it may give the bland Miss H a chance to show what skills she's capable of and been hiding from us.

I like Anne as a person, but she's not one of my favorites. As someone else Indicated, she's played an out of element role before in Havoc and her performance and the movie itself was pretty bad. If she's good in this then good for her, but I don't really have any interest in this film.

I suspect, that after a couple of months the backlash will start (haming it up and over doing it) and she will end up like Keira Knightley in Atonement no nomination at all. Or this could be Juno the little movie that almost everybody hates, but mainstream (supposedly) loves.

And Anne is my life. She was integral to my development, mostly through The Princess Diaries and Ella Enchanted, and her general awesomeness. All the buzz she's getting just makes my heart explode in pure, sugary happiness.

She'll definitely always be one of my favorite actresses, because she's always been there to be amazing and make me happy, through anything and everything.

I don't really have any desire to see this. I already loved Margot At The Wedding and there is NO way Hathaway can stand with Kidman. I think Hathaway is probably a nice person, but she is kinda bland. I DO think she is more talented then Natalie Portman however....and Hathaway has a terrific singing voice as well.

BUT...BUT...I can't wait for THE WRESTLER! Great reviews from Reporter and Variety...and I always liked Mickey Rourke as an actor. I think make room for him on your Oscar predictions!

I imagine the people who hate Anne Hathaway are the same people who hate anyone who is popular in the mainstream like Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon. I don't think anyone has said (yet) that she is the greatest actress in the world, but she's on her way to becoming the sort of star that shines for decades. A lot of people forget that a lot of the stars we remember to this day from the golden age of cinema weren't routinely giving the greatest performances known to mankind, but they had an energy or magnatism that made them stars.

Looking forward to the movie, and to Hathaway in it. That poster is dreadful though. Although, at least it's not a picture of Anne in the corner surrounded by a sea of white like the Margot at the Wedding poster. What's going on with the title design on the poster though? Looks skewiff.

I imagine people who make sweeping generalizations on others based on those others' attitude towards one actress (or movie, etc.) must lead dull life with no friends.

Anyway, looking forwards to RGM not because of Hathaway but to see if Demme returns to the directors' First League with this. I didn't like the trailer very much, actually, but that was mainly due to the hokey montage at the end (particularly clashing with the whole handheld, digital, "real" look I assume the film is trying to accomplish). So just this once I hope a trailer was a bit of false advertising. ;)

I'm totally excited about this movie, and I adore Anne Hathaway (mainly because of Brokeback Mountain).The more I watch The Devil Wears Prada (and I watch it A LOT!) the more I think that Hathaway really shines in the part of Andy. She gives the role what it needs, it's her we identify ourselves with, and we do. Or at least I do... ;)

and @ Glenn:You're so right. I don't get that hatred for nowadays big movie stars like Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan. Maybe they're not the greates actresses in the world, but they have this certain thing, just like actresses like Marlene Dietrich or Norma Shearer. They didn't play characters like... I don't know... Iris Murdoch, but still they are considered great actresses today!

well there's definitely something to be said for stars who play themselves... provided they play themselves with great aplomb. Like say, Cary Grant.

and there's a reason that you always hear of actresses waiting for their Erin Brockovich role. If you're a STAR first and actor second as Julia Robert arguably is... you always need the role that both capitalizes on YOU and allows some flexing on the acting front too... and you need to do both parts beautifully. those roles are not easy to come by despite the plethora of star vehicles made.

I understand why some people don't think Anne is much of a superior talent (at least not yet) but I just love to look at her face and that's usually the mark of a star.

It helps that she's not the boring ol' tanorexic blonde bimbo who got famous for doing nothing or note or the bombshell who harps on and on about wanting to be respected but just continues to make movies with Dane Cook and Adam Sandler.

But it's like how people hate Julia because she won the Oscar for Erin Brockovich. Like, did they even watch that performance or what?

And perhaps I was a bit hasty with the generalisations, but I can't see anything that Anne has done wrong. She has MOVIE STAR written all over her.

I'm feeling good about Anne Hathaway's Oscar chances this year, and I've had her in my predictions since spring. It feels like her time to finally break through with a nomination after some near-misses and being overshadowed by showier performers and nominees. Now it's her turn to be the showcase.

No, I don't hate her because "she's popular," and I really resent that, Glenn. I think Julia Roberts' Oscar for Erin Brockovich wasn't undeserved (Burstyn and Linney were better, but Roberts still kicked ass). I'm one of very few people who actively defends Reese's win as the best of the nominees that year, and one of the overall best of the year. Kindly don't analyze me when you don't know me. I merely think Anne's been given some great roles that she's done nothing with. I think she's got all the magnetism of a wet sock, and that she's about as interesting as some chick that sits next to me in my English class ("but that chick's really hot" comments aside).

//I just love to look at her face and that's usually the mark of a star.//

Is it? I thought it was something more complex than that, having more to do with star quality or persona that just looks. (There are plenty of people in the world more beautiful than the ones we've seen on screen, but they aren't movie stars, or stars of any sort for that matter.)

And whereas for face does nothing for me, Nat, so for you she's a star but for me she's an ok actress about whom I'm still waiting to be convinced. I don't hate her, she just doesn't excite me.